Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive285

This is an archive page, last updated 19 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Andy makes early prediction...hilarity ensues.

Young people love Santorum! "Apparently" they love him a lot! Nope, they definitely love him a lot! They nearly love him a lot! What a twat. Can someone please add this to their list of brilliant insights? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The funny things is, if Gingrich wasn't there and Santorum got all the votes Gingrich received (by no way guaranteed), Santorum would have won the state. I wonder what Andy thinks of his Georgian buddy now?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What I learned from that is that old people shouldn't count in elections, because they tend to vote for the wrong guy. Phiwum (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why Romney even bothers showing up. He barely even won. 99.17.116.69 (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just realized you let me post via IP address. What are you guys, some kind of hippie anarchists? Czolgolz (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we're a front for that division of the CIA that Stephen King likes to write about (he pays us royalties). Now that we have your IP address, some "people" will be paying you a "visit." --PsyGremlinTal! 12:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

October Baby

August: Andy, the reviews for your "top rate" movie are terrible: "gauzy cinematography and more emo music than an entire season of 'Grey’s Anatomy'" & "traffics primarily in soapy melodrama and false compassion"^img

Andy: Once the predictable liberal bias is removed from the reference, it does support the quality of the production of the film.^{img — Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs}

Or, to put it another way, once you ignore what the article actually says and instead read whatever you already think about the film, the NY Times says it's fricking awesome! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

For me the best part is that he truly thinks "gauzy cinematography" is intended to be positive. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 18:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, CP, Please...

Express your about this photo of Barack Obama and Nichelle Nichols.

Because, really, it would just show you are a bunch of sticks-in-the-mud with zero sense of humor. MDB (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Its a hand symbol of the Illuminati/NWO to tell demonic aliens from beyond Zeta Reticuli its finally time to start rounding up good Christian Conservatives to place into FEMA death trailer homes using black helicopters.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not Vulcan salutes. He's already been to Mars. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As Star Trek is conservative, this is Obama trying to look more conservative. Also, liberals. --★uːʤɱ digital native 12:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Star Wars was conservative (libertarian universe, fascist dictators, free markets, owned by Fox) and Star Trek was liberal (egalitarian/socialist society, non-interference practices, clean energy, eschewing war, owned by Paramount). -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to get Andy to renounce Star Trek as liberal but he wouldn't do it. I explained how it was basically a socialist utopia where the only capitalist species(Ferengi) were mocked but he wouldn't listen. Ayzmo (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My spider-senses tell me Andy is a "Trekker" (hey, he was an Electrical Engineering major -- speaking as one myself, the non-Trek fans were a distinct minority. I was in college when Next Gen premiered, and all of the EE majors were discussing it the next day -- including a few of the professors.) and can't bring himself to admit a show he loves is liberal. MDB (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes one wonder what his opinion of "The Outcast" was. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sexist.

So there's a debate above about whether or not Andy is a racist, but the more I re-read it, I think it's as much of a debate about what we're going to count as racism as it is about one guy. While we might debate Andy's racism, his sexism^img is beyond question. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Duh. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's sexism is obvious, but I don't think that the fact he defends all-men's clubs is that damning. A person might think that private clubs can be gender-exclusive for various non-sexist reasoning. (Now, his exams that differ according to gender, on the other hand...) Phiwum (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

His defending them against the bugbear of "feminism" damns him. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 20:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the simplest formulation is that Andy is a bigot. When someone doesn't share his background and beliefs it isn't simply a matter of disagreement, but of inequality. Stile4aly (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's more about beliefs than background: Clarence Thomas, Allan Keyes, and other "good" blacks don't share his background, but they're okay because they pretty much toe his party line. He's an equal-opportunity bigot. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy: "Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood." There's more here. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You really can't get more sexist than having separate exam questions for boys and girls. Vulpius (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

How about campaigning against the Equal Rights Amendment? I wonder how much having a mother who was always away from home giving speeches about how women should be staying in the home is responsible for Andy coming out the way he did. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, like most people, has cultural, ideological, philosophical, theological, and of course political ideals crammed into his head. Where he differs from the norm is that people/ideas that don't match his own are not simply different, they are inferior and unworthy of serious consideration. It's not like Andy thinks that no woman can score as well as a man on math tests, it's that he believes real women don't do as well. Trust me, you present Andy's kind with a woman who can go toe-to-toe with any man in math and science, and Andy will simply start to chip away at her perceived lack of true "womanhood" by pointing out her physical appearance or lack of domestic skills... blah blah blah. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just like a "real" conservative has to agree to every single ideological talking point he has or be branded a RINO. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 00:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Honestly, the thing that has bothered me about RW for some time is the way many of it's veteran members seem to credit Andy (and to a lesser extent Ken) with more intellectual lifting capacity than I've ever seen either of them demonstrate. RW is shocked at their oddity as if Stephen Hawking turned out to be an avid ghost chaser and homeopathic medicine practitioner. Then it becomes this big mystery of "Why does Andy say these weird things?", after which we proceed to overlook the obvious answer... he's not that bright. As such, he displays many of the shortcomings that come in attendance with stupidity... sexism, bigotry, closed-mindedness and so forth. I could be wrong. If somebody can provide an example of Andy laying out a well reasoned argument, to a sound conclusion, I'd love to see it. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"...veteran members seem to credit Andy (and to a lesser extent Ken) with more intellectual lifting capacity than I've ever seen either of them demonstrate." Well, when the other people in the room are JPatt, Rob, Karajou and Ed Poor, Andy is comparatively smarter. Also, he has degrees from two of the most prestigious universities in the entire world. That doesn't make him smart by any means, but it is going to impress the hell out of really dull blades like those guys, some of whom struggle with basic literacy; so yeah, they're going to credit him with being an intellectual because he's the closest thing they've encountered to an intellectual. Since Jensen left, I'm not entirely sure if they have a single college diploma outside of Andy in their regular editor base. Compare that with this out-of-date list of another website's academic credentials. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 00:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but degrees don't make people intellectuals. On the other hand I wouldn't think the B-villain cast of CP would get that.

This whole discussion reminds me of an argument that an, at the time, 16 year old female friend of mine made in favor of complete legal euqality, I think it went something like this: "I want the same rights as men. I want the right to vote, I want equal pay, I want to work for a living and not be chained to the oven — but I can't deny away the duties of men just because I'm a woman. If men have to go to war and get all fucked up for the country then I will do that too!" Once again, 16 years old. Ironically not even with German citizenship at that point. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

@P-Foster. I can sort of understand your point, but it's quite clear than none of that ivy league education sunk in at all. At it's root, the practice of law is the ability to craft a logical and persuasive argument. Oddly enough, this is the one thing that Andy fails so completely at. To be fair, I guess he does seem like a mental powerhouse next to Jpratt and Popeye, but those two generally know their cognitive limitations and tend stay in the shallow end of the pool. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're shocked by the things Andy says as much as we're incredulous that anyone could say those things and actually mean it. It's not (just) that Andy's an ignoramus, there are plenty of exceptionally stupid people at CP, it's that the fields he chooses to apply his idiocy to are so creative. JPratt's or Ed's idiocy can sometimes make you angry, but mostly they're just sadly predictable. The things Andy comes out with are downright stunning in their originality. I suppose that makes Andy smarter than his herd, in a way. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeeves has it exactly right. Guys like Jpatt and Hurlbutt just say stuff like "herp a derp, Obama is a Muslim!" Andy tries to argue that Jesus and cake disprove relativity. I wouldn't quite call it clever exactly, but it's something they're not. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ambition, maybe? Very, very misguided ambition. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not quite ambition, as such. No, I think Andy has the skill set of a conspiracy theorist. The ability to draw a straight line between two unrelated dots. Which puts him head and shoulders above his colleagues. Flingbooty et al, can only regurgitate what they glean from other sources, while Andy has the ability to cook up the fresh crazy. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So if E=mc^2 is wrong...

How exactly does andy justify nuclear power? I looked at the article but gave up from the insanity midway. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

During the course of this affair, we've established that Andy doesn't understand the difference between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction. I doubt he really has even the basic theoretical grasp of nuclear power that you'd expect a high school graduate to have. His entire reasoning is based on a ridiculous objection to the speed of light being a fundamental constant of the universe, which in turn he bases on his extremely peculiar reading of the Bible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And a perceived connection between the theory of relativity and moral relativism. Right?--Spud (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mystery:How Does Nuclear Power Work? Goddidit. Vulpius (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Steady. I think you need to read up on E=mc^2 and its relation to nuclear energy. I'm pretty sure that the speed of light has little or nothing to do with the energy from nuclear reactions. Rather it is the concept of mass-energy equivalence that is important - heat something up and it gets more massive, for example. Any reaction, including chemical, that produces energy can be explained by mass-energy equivalence. The speed of light is simply a constant used to explain relativistic mass. I'm sure there's a physicist here who can explain this better but the point I'm making is that beating Aschlafly over the head with nuclear energy and E=mc^2 is likely to be counter-productive. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about fission, but here's how it works for fusion (as in what the Sun does):

• When two nuclei fuse (as in the Sun), the end product weighs less than the total of the ingredients
• The missing mass is converted directly into energy, and you can work out how much Energy by multiplying the Mass by the square of the speed of light

And fusion has been done on Earth, so there we go. ^{ONE / TALK} 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Mikalos is talking about the basic observation that each atom has the potential to be converted in to vastly more energy than can be got at chemically. An observation that Andy seems to either deny or just not understand, see his person eating cake example. Since that's the basic observation that lead to the theoretical possibility of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, it seems like Andy really would struggle to explain how that works. Indeed, if you look at the talk page for e=mc^2, he really does have trouble with the concept. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, but E=mc^2 says nothing about why nuclear reactions produce more energy than chemical ones. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

E=mc^2 expresses that energy has mass and that conversely, mass represents a certain amount of energy. In an exothermic nuclear reaction, the products have greater binding energy per nucleon* than the reactants, and the mass of the energy released corresponds to a loss of up to 1% or so of the mass you started with. In an exothermic chemical reaction, the products have greater chemical binding energy per atom than the reactants, and the mass of the energy released corresponds to a loss of perhaps a millionth of a percent of the mass you started with. If you threw an atom into a perfect GUT reactor and converted it to photons, the mass hasn't vanished -- the photons that come out have the same mass as the atom that went in. E=mc^2 doesn't tell you anything about the mechanisms actually involved with these processes, it's just that nuclear reactions are energetic enough that the mass change of the particles is noticeable.

• This peaks with iron and nickel, so smaller nuclei generally can release energy by fusion, and larger nuclei can generally release energy by fission or nucleon emission.184.61.193.172 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(Ajkgordon:)If we stress that this is not "about light" by writing E=mk, do you think Andy would say "I agree with that"? Is it only the constant of proportionality he objects to? Do you think the constant matters in this discussion? Is it possible that c² is the liberal claptrap and we all agree that nuclear reactions involve turning a little mass into a lot of energy, just don't say light is involved? Whoover (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he simply doesn't agree with anything that has to do with either relativity or Einstein. That's it. He doesn't care whether it's true or not - but he does think that believing it will turn people away from a/his literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore he pours scorn on it. Remember, "everything is politics", (a phrase he doesn't understand anyway).

But my point about nuclear energy is that it is not a good example to be used in support of E=mc^2 and therefore shouldn't be used to prod Aschlafly. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this edit from, I presume, a parodist, summarises perfectly the objection Aschlafly has to E=mc^2.

"The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative"."

Ajkgordon (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a suspicion. I think Andy's starting to get a little perturbed that no major publication/scientist has caught on to the insanity and Lenski'd him. Ain't shit being going on at CP and he knows it. The man desperately needs another Lenski and this is best best chance. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Could be. Although he's has had a beef with relativity (and by extension E=mc^2, Einstein, etc) for a long time. Could be that he's selected one of his "insights" to be the poster boy for CP. Which one might garner the same sort of attention as the Lenski episode? Trouble is he needs to find a person who's likely to react in defence of some mainstream science theory or research. Al's been dead a while. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven't seen this trope in a while...

Obama's Christianity doubtful.^img P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

At the same time, we are all children of God. So...we're all his daughters? Next issue: That makes us all lesbians in whatever capacity you look at it. And I've always wanted to repost that one. -- 22:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Andy playing Six Degrees of Tebow now? Vulpius (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The pure lack of intelligence from CP/birthers/whomever seems fairly evident and goes to show that they know NOTHING about Islam (I know it isn't specifically mentioned, but I know that's what everyone is thinking when they say Obama's not a Christian). Islam has extremely stringent tenets about many things—consumption of alcohol, smoking cigarettes, eating pork or other haram foods, performing prayer, attending services, even studying the Koran...and many of these things are not done privately. If Obama (an ex-smoker) had been seen practicing ANY of these tenets, he'd be seen and known by other Muslims and outed almost immediately. He'd be able to quote the Koran verbatim or speak a little Arabic (unlike the Bible, there are no "variations of translation", only the original version is canon, and imams even get corrected during services by attendees because misquoting the Koran is a minor no-no). He'd throw in an "Insh'allah" or an "Allamdalilah" in everyday conversation as if the rest of us were saying "God willing" or "Thank heaven", and his tax returns would reflect a Zakat (the Muslim equivalent of a tithe) to his favorite mosque. Yet none of these things ever happen.

And even if he was a Muslim, so fucking what. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Colin Powell said pretty much that last sentence when he endorsed Obama. His phrasing was something like, "I've been to Arlington Cemetery, and I've seen graves with crosses and Stars of David, and I've seen graves with crescents on them. And I defy anyone to tell the mothers of those brave Muslims that their children were not suited to be President." MDB (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A challenge all current GOP candidates (and some of the former ones also) are too chickenshit/chickenhawk to even entertain attempting. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

None of that applies to Andy's claim, he's got an out; Muslims are allowed to actively lie and deceive others if it advances Islam's cause (or something). So, see, the fact that Obama acts nothing like a muslim is just further proof that he is. X Stickman (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(Dammit, I see X Stickman beat me to it.) Any violations of Islam committed by Obama is permissible because Taqiyya^img allows a Muslim to hide or even violate their religion if doing so furthers the interests of Islam. Therefore, as an uncover Muslim^img (yes, CP actually has an article on that), Obama is allowed to violate Islam and every time he violates Islamic tenets actually just proves he's an uncover Muslim (except when it comes to dancing, for some reason). Or the more parsimonious explanation: he's not a fuckin' Muslim. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of ya for further fleshing out the first five words of my original comment. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The real insanity is Christendom whipping itself into a frenzy when Obama obviously just misspoke. "A" instead of "the"? Gimme a fucking break. This wasn't a carefully edited encyclical. He was giving a speech. Obama Derangement Syndrome at its best. And what the hell does Would you say the same thing if Obama referred to John Adams as the first president of the United States? mean? "George Washington was a first president of the United States" is the same thing. An obvious misstatement. "John Adams was the first president of the United States." Not the same. Whoover (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I like that Andy references John 3:16 in that link but then has to edit their CBP version to tell people to scroll down to see the verse.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's post put a big smile on my face this morning. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Crap, I guess the latest frothing about Obama made them realize a parodist's edit and fixed it. For three days, Obama was declared Muslim, and born in Kenya. Oh look, Andy even reverted it back to that version in its history, too. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ah but what if...

The "a son of God" was a coded shout out to the GOP presumptive nominee...who would be ill advised to join the "what jou talkin 'bout Obama?" chorus the evangelical right is going to put up. Mitten's faith actually says that Jesus was but one of many chil'rens God had, (Satan was another!). C®ackeЯ

Yeah. God had a wife, but he cheated on her with Mary. Was "Heavenly Mother" (God's wife) Satan's mother? Was Mary a plural wife? What about Joseph, the poor sod. Problem is that Mitt will have no problem shaking the Etch-a-Sketch for the duration of this debate and speak as an Evangelical. Who's gonna challenge him? It would be fun to watch, though. Whoover (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is a real possibility. Obama or someone working closely with him really is smart enough to pull off a maneuver like that. When he first went down the individual mandate road I was sure that he made a mistake by not fighting harder to get a more socialized form of medicine in place, but after a while I noticed that it was a move that subtly but completely screwed over the man likely to be his biggest rival in 2012, Mitt. While Romney care was a total conservative move back when Romney did it, by going straight for the individual mandate goal himself Obama took ownership of it and suddenly Romney found himself stained with Obama's move. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 03:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Occam and Hanlon would suggest that this is a very silly proposition indeed. --Sasayaki (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Laugh while you can monkey boys: if gas goes to $5, we will all be wearing magic underwear! Jimaginator (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt that it will! The Koch brothers will be speculating in oil futures driving the price up all summer. Next year at this time gasoline (or what passes for it here in the US) will be $2.79/gal. 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I want it at $2.79 now. Michele Bachmann had a plan to make gas $2.00, why won't she share it???? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think her plan was to implore god to make it rain whales, thus crushing many SUVs to deplete demand while simultaneously supplying a goodly amount of blubber to render down for oil. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, Andy doesn't know the Bible. He cites chapter 3 of John but never read chapter 1, "As many as received Him gave he the power [some translations say "right"] to become sons of God [many modern politically correct translations use gender neutral "children of God"]. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 23:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

there is a distinction between humanities status as sons/daughters of god and Jesus's status as Son of God. so that doesnt apply rob. --il'Dictator Mikal 23:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The phrase drummed in to me in all those years in church, before I was old enough to call bullshit, was "begotten, not made." Always struck me as a distinction without a difference. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

All Christians are being adopted into the family of God, (whereby they "have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" [3]) This is a pretty cheap attack on Obama, and the cite Andy uses does no service to its own credibility, either. You don't think bible believing Christians can't see the naked twisting of Scripture for political ends, by people with no understanding of the bible, and are not offended at a blatant attempt at manipulation? nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 00:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In which Mikalos derails the subject

coming from somebody who says the commandments can be ignored, you really cant claim superiority rob. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying to derail the subject, huh? I never claimed superiority. "we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

wherein jesus contradicts the author of romans. later still the author of romans agrees that the law is not abolished by jesus!--il'Dictator Mikal 01:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read your cite? Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? "Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was put in charge of us until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.'" [my emp]. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 01:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

--il'Dictator Mikal 01:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious to know CP's view on this

Considering that when McChrystal was fired to talking negatively about Obama, they jumped on the situation. This seems like a similar case, except that a) the Marine posted on Facebook, which Schlafly doesn't have a positive take on, and b) the ACLU is defending him. άλφα^Ταλκ 15:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

E=MC²

Apart from the appalling written English, to be fair, surely it's an April Fool's gag? ^{— Unsigned, by: Scherben / talk / contribs}

You mean this article? No, I'm sorry, it's not an April Fool's gag (just like CP itself isn't an elaborate April Fool's gag, no matter what we hoped for in the past). This is what Andy apparently really believes, just like he honestly believes that Castro died years ago and that liberals like the Pope were fooled by a body double because they're not Castrologists like Andy. --Sid (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It'd be fun to see Roger toss his hat in.

Fuck all the people who say we shouldn't be diagnosing Andy, claiming to have disproved the mass–energy equivalence is cut-and-dry a grandiose delusion. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with questioning his sanity, qualifications, and DCL status...I just don't think we need to pay any more attention to him than we do to, say, Behe or Comfort or Taitz or any of the multitudinous number of cranks, half-wits, bigots and racists. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

They don't make me laugh (except for Taitz sometimes). Being here for the lulz isn't a crime. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, I just couldn't believe that anyway could be that stupid; added to which was the date of the post. Oh, and sorry for forgetting to sign the previous post Scherben 18:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Abhorapedia?

Sorry for stating the obvious, but the main driver of Conservapedia is, shall we say, intense dislike of stuff. (Hate is such a strong word.) Liberals, atheists, science (evolution, climatology, astronomy, physics ...), Islam, democrats, Obama -- the list is also obvious. Yes, we can debate the edges like whether overt racism or sexism is official policy. But so little on that site is pro anything. Even the "Yay God" stuff seems mostly "we can't wait until our God kills all the people we intensely dislike."

So I found this page^img interesting. In extreme cases, hatred can lead to rage or irrationality. Maybe the most trustworthy information there. Whoover (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Mockery of Christ...

*headdesk*

...by liberals?^img --Sid (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course they were liberals. Don't you know that every bad character in the bible was a liberal? Snake in the garden? Liberal. Satan? Liberal. The wretched stuff God did in the Old Testament? His brief dabble with totalitarian liberalism before adopting free-market, small government deism. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Good ol' Andy; not even the most sacred time of the Christian liturgical calender is safe from his debasing in order to attempt to score political points through cheap shots. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious by-point: The Alte Pinakothek were the picture is held currently is part of the Bavarian State Picture Collection — state funded, state run and kept intact by the state. Fucking... liberals… keeping… conservative masterworks… alive… and in... public. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 00:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

BCMP, we are talking about the man who set out to rewrite the bible. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 07:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubio...

Wasn't he a favorite of Andy's at one point? Now, he's just another ineffectual Rino.^img P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 00:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

he was, and also a part on the citizenship requirement debates. notice though, both ricky and jeb arent on that list afaik.--il'Dictator Mikal 00:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubio was one of the original co-sponsors of the senate version of SOPA which turned Andy off a bit when I brought it to his attention. He did refuse to label Rubio after that though. And yeah, his analysis is pretty accurate. Rubio is rather disliked in Florida. Ayzmo (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't miss the "hur-hur! Chris Christie's fat!" "joke." What is it with these people? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Mommy dearest

She is such a charmer. Ace^Moderator 03:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

She made a joke about Bella Abzug? How many students these days would know that name? Way to work a crowd. Phiwum (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

She's over 80 now. I think her days of being with it are long since passed. I'm astonished you can even find students willing to come listen to her. It's kind of sad to watch her still fighting a war she lost 40 years ago. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

She almost single-handedly defeated the ERA. She's still fighting it, of course. ħuman 22:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But of course she's still fighting the ERA, who wants homosexuals getting married? unisex Bathrooms? C®ackeЯ 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Won't see this on CP

This would be a conundrum for Andy "Dr. Babyshakes" Schlafly. On one hand, he knows shaken baby syndrome is a liberal myth. On the other hand this commutation can't be a good thing because liberals. He can duck it publicly by making no mention of it, but how does it play out in his brain, I wonder? I guess he concentrates on the years the woman served in prison before she was pardoned and dismisses this as too little too late, blaming liberals for her conviction in the first place. It would necessitate throwing Schwarzenegger under the bus for letting the woman stay incarcerated so long, but he's a RINO anyway, right? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ruh-oh.

Joaquin is showing ever more signs of being a lib-uh-ral^img. That's sure to piss off Chuckarse. That might need to get him some reparative therapy to get him back on the straight and narrow path to raving incoherently about birth certificates and muslims. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am about to do something I rarely do. I am about to pray. I am going to pray that Jomar puts this on MPR. Please, God. Please. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 15:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If he does I give it 20 seconds before it's removed or moved to the bottom to make way for Hurlbut's Towelhead Extermination Project. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I Shoulda Known That

Birtherism is the just deserts for the left's own documentation scandal, tax forms^img. Whoover (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. 17:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Get to work!

As if we needed more evidence of CP's decline, take a look at the speedy deletions candidate page^img... I'm starting to wonder if Andy even checks recent changes anymore. If not him, then who is left?--"Shut up, Brx." 19:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken

has been so starved for our attention of late, he went ahead and looked at recent changes thanks to his religiously refreshing this page in the hopes that we might mention him.  You're welcome, Ken.[1]img--"Shut up, Brx." 20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain WIGO

Someone more versed than I in WIGOing may want to add that Andy added this information to a page which is explicitly about the island of Great Britan rather than to the article about the country. Random surfer (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Noticing that caused a slight WTF moment. The island has declined, Andy? A little erosion aside, I think the island has changed little in the last 100 years. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically, he's correct. Now that we've stopped filling mountainsides with slagheaps the effects of erosion are now noticeable. Britain is less in height than it once was. Thankfully, our slags are not.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of very tall girls out there. Andy does realise that the Church of England is the official church and that therefore should be his idea kind of state, right? Oh wait, we're all socialist atheists. Well, I'm a Liberal Democrat atheist. That's probably grounds for my execution according to Andy. Darkmind1970 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You must be the only LibDem left, well, willing to admit to being one. 82.23.210.230 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy thought the Liberal Party (yeah, the one from World War One) was in charge of "England" since 1997 and doesn't know the difference between Great Britain, the United Kingdom or England. I also remember him referring to Tony Blair getting heckled in Dublin as "British style". Like anything else he ever has to say about anything ever, you can pretty much disregard anything he has to say about the British Isles as uninformed horseshit. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, conflating England, Britain, and the UK isn't uncommon for Americans, and isn't really that bad. As for heckling, I always figured that was something common to the politics over there. Every time I see a video of parliament or whatever, it's an insult away from being an all out brawl. Compare that to the brouhaha over Joe Wilson shouting "You lie!" here in the States.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Any MP calling another a liar gets throw out of the chamber. It's one of the few things they can't call each other. 82.23.210.230 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The WIGO entry misses the point that Random Surfer brought up in the first place. Andy added his ill-informed opinion bit to an article that is supposed to be specifically about the geographical feature that is the island of Great Britain. There's a redirect at the top that leads to "Kingdom of Great Britain", which is itself little more than a redirect to "United Kingdom", which is mostly copied out of the CIA Factbook with some of Ken's ramblings about bestiality tagged on. The WIGO fails to mention that if you read the CP Great Britain page literally, it says that atheism and socialism are making the island crumble into the sea. --Spud (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

@Brx, I know it's not uncommon for some non-Brits to confuse them but it's not a complex concept at all; Great Britain = island, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland = countries, United Kingdom = sovereign state. It's not remotely difficult to understand, and it's definitely something that a world history teacher should know. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 12:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me what Andy's doing here is making sure the one thing any reader of CP associates with anything British is atheism. I'm sure it's covered in the UK and England articles, but then he comes across Great Britain, and, lo and behold, not a single mention of atheism (or anything else, really)! Well, it doesn't take him long to remedy that. Next we'll be seeing atheism feature prominently in articles on the Queen, Stonehenge, tea and crumpets, Are You Being Served, and everything else he might associate with that horrible place. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

We have Atheistic Dentistry, that explains the teeth don't you know? 82.23.210.230 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Paging Doctor Babyshakes!!! Doctor Babyshakes to the ER, STAT!!!

Do not let this man babysit your child.^img P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 04:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, prove me wrong, why don't ya. I guess that answers my question. A liberal can, on occasion, do something right. If only Andy's reasoning weren't so disturbingly terrible. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow... I see Ken found that article and shat all over it too. --PsyGremlinTala! 08:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

CP Proven Right? Or Shakin' Babies? I don't see him there... P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 13:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

CPPR - look at the six entries below the baby shaking. Pure, unadulterated Ken. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Red telephone for Andy

Hey, Andy. When you tout an atheist becoming a Christian^img, you might want to make sure the dude hasn't changed his mind in the mean time. Just saying. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Once saved, always saved, (no backsies), this sayeth da lord. C®ackeЯ

Groundhog Day

It's April Fool's Day^img all over again at CP. I guess Andy liked his joke so much he decided it needed to be repeated. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama's a Muslim

What's funnier that Obama now being labeled a definite non-Christian probable Muslim? Scroll to the bottom of the article and see that the Iraq withdrawal is now simply Obama carrying out Bush's policy. Stile4aly (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama is now murdering people to cover his (Kenyan) tracks.

... According to the latest from Chuckarse^img. Yay, Vince Foster 2.0. These arsehats are despicable, there's no slimy lie they won't sink to. The US seriously needs better libel laws to bankrupt fuckwits like Hurlbutt. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech, son. Freedom of speech. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 21:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with a defamation suit over this, even in a country with decent defamation laws, would be that the difficulty in showing that anyone reading this 'article' would have had their opinion of Obama damaged for the worse by it. Anyone with some sense can see its nonsense, and anyone who believes it already believed all the nonsense about Obama anyway. Not to mention the fact that virtually no-one reads the articles anyway. --Damo^Hi 22:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see that in court. I'd love to see his reaction to it. "The court rejects the claim of defamation on the grounds that the article is too stupid for anyone to believe." X Stickman (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the same thing happened with Vitamin Water. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The article ought to be disseminated widely so people can laugh at Throwbottom and perhaps flick small objects at him from a special viewing platform. Sophie^{because liberals} 22:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I would find the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories far more entertaining if he could just put forth some sort of coherent motive. I asked Terry on his blog, he said something about how Obama is super charismatic and mentioned stereotypes about Chicago having a political machine. Why create this whole big conspiracy? Did his mother have plans to put him up as president? It wasn't just to give him citizenship. So long as he's born to an American parent, he's a citizen.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

CP's position on Palestine.

It is important that the world recognizes an independent Palestinian state along the pre-1967 borders.^img Jomar again, unclear on the concept. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I think I hear the sound of Tossbottom shitting himself in fury. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Types of Energy

Schlafly seems to have confused chemical energy with nuclear energy, a very basic distinction. The cake thing is just incredible!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the same guy who is unable to distinguish between Scientific Relativity and Moral relativity. I am just waiting for him to reject Gravity as being mere atheistic propaganda by the known abortionist (and probable muslim) Isaac Newton Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

E=MC2 redux

Very simple way to get Andy to understand....if such a thing is even possible. Ask him about radioactive elements. They are giving off energy in the form of radiation. Where is that energy coming from Andy? It can't be created from nothing so the only..only...explanation is that it is converting some of its mass into energy. Fuck, as someone that readily understands and can explain the equation it gets on my nerves to see it butchered by some weirdo lawyer with bizarre laugh and even stranger comprehension of the world. Ace^Moderator 09:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

'Very simple way to get Andy to understand....if such a thing is even possible.' Actually, the last part of that sentence should read, '…if Andy was willing to understand.' There's no point taking Andy to the Louvre to see the Sunflowers if he's bound and determined to poke his eyes out to avoid being corrupted by the atheistic French.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Pedantry corner) I'm not sure that there is any point in taking Andy to the Louvre to see the Sunflowers. They're not there. (or a I missing the snark?) Bob Soles (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they're at the Musee d'Orsay, I knew Louvre wasn't right even when typing it, yet I still managed to convince myself it was the Louvre. Even more annoyingly, saw the Doc Who episode just 3 days ago, so I should have known really.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I really shouldn't be using Doctor Who to educamate meselfs, but there you go…-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You must have got confused with the Mona Lisa. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that "City of Death" for those of us who can't see YouTube on their current machine? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is. One of the best ever. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Does La Orsay have any of the Sunflowers? It does have The Starry Night which is a prominent part of the episode, and the episode does (IIRC) show some of the Sunflowers in Van Gough's studio. CS Miller (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw starry night at MOMA on Friday and actually wondered what Andy's take on various museums in NYC would be. Conservative Frick. Liberal MOMA. What's the Met? 03:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

While Tom Baker and Romana can't be beat, the 11th Doctor has an episode more likely to be the referent. I will say one thing for the modern Doctor Whos: the companions are hotter. When one moved on to Secret Diary of a Call Girl, you know they changed the recipe. Whoover (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in the seventies... Sophie^{because liberals} 09:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention Mrs Dawkins. Cantabrigian (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Or for those of us born in the 70s Ace. CS Miller (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, what Andy is doing is more akin to the Tortoise's stubbornness in Achilles and the Tortoise. The Tortoise refuses to accept the actual mechanism of implication, so if you show the Tortoise that A implies B, and A is true, it can accept that both statements are true, yet deny B anyway. This is a problem for logic, ultimately you have to accept a bunch of rules which can have no prior justification. Most of them are intuitively reasonable (like implication) but some of the trickier ones are less so. It would have been the big problem if not for Gödel demolishing the project of "proving" mathematics by turning the system on itself. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, the above is a reference to one of the chapter introductions from Gödel, Escher, Bach. Omar (gibber) 14:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, more likely a reference to the Lewis Carroll piece that GEB presumably also refers to. Phiwum (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem of the Tortoise would not have been the big problem. The lesson is simply that logical deductions require at least one rule of inference. In fact, the rule of Modus Ponens (the implication rule you mention) is sufficient, since it is possible to state first-order logic in terms of that single rule of inference, and a set of axioms. I really haven't any clue why the anon poster thinks that other inference rules are necessary at all. They aren't. Phiwum (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(Actually, one might need a rule for universal generalization as well, but I'm not sure. If so, that's two rules of inference, not one.) Phiwum (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you were right before, if all you want is First Order logic then you can choose any one of several inference rules and stick to your choice. However, as impressive as First Order logic is, it's not everything by a long way. To build a more powerful system you must introduce more (and less intuitive) rules, in doing so you make Tortoise-like arguments stronger and (we now know) you let in Gödel by permitting your system to reason about itself. If you stick with First Order logic you're powerless to deal with concepts a five year old can understand. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, hogwash! First-order logic plus non-logical axioms is sufficient for all mathematical reasoning of my familiarity. In particular, Goedel's theorems are theorems about a (class of) first-order theory.

I don't know where you get your ideas. Peano arithmetic, ZFC, various algebraic theories, even category theory, can all be studied as theories in first-order logic, with no additional rules of inference required. Perhaps you're (half-)remembering discussions in a popularization like GEB, but I promise you that you've gotten the wrong idea here.

But, tell you what. Maybe I'm wrong. Why not tell me about one of these powerful systems that require unintuitive rules of inference and how these rules "let in" incompleteness? For extra credit, mention how this rule helps one reason about concepts that a five-year-old can understand but that cannot be represented in a first-order theory. I'm all ears. Phiwum (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dumbfounded by Andy...I know, right?

What the fuck?^img "Denying" an Hispanic person^img a grand jury by not bringing any charges in the first place??? I'm thinking I must be confused... someone help. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You'd think if there's one thing that Dr. Andy, BotP understood it'd be the law. Apparently not. What "protection" does he think a grand jury gives? They don't even hear evidence for the defence. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but think he's getting worse, but I'm assuming that at one point he understood basic legal concepts when he graduated from Harvard Law. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

IANAL, but what Andy is looking for is a grand jury to vet the charges before Zimmerman is charged--by not going through a grand jury, the DA has one less hurdle to jump before charging the guy. Thus, he's being denied the protection of a jury of his peers having their say on the charges. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 21:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He really does seem to be becoming increasingly detached from reality. He's now arguing with his own brother about relativity. Nobody is supporting him in his latest crap, not even his loyal goons. You'd think that if everyone you trusted was telling you you're wrong, that you'd at least give it passing consideration. Not Andy though, he's the arbiter of everything. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

None of his hired guns loyal goons understand relativity either. Генгис^pillaging 15:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That is certainly peculiar. Everybody else seems to think that no grand jury means no trial for Zimmerman period.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it potentially means just the opposite: "Corey has had three options: to file charges against Mr. Zimmerman, drop the case, or send it before the grand jury. And despite expectations that the jury might convene this week, Corey had indicated earlier that she might not use that option, saying that she has never before used a grand jury to decide on filing charges in a possible homicide case. Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for Trayvon's family, spoke with several news outlets right after word of Corey's decision to bypass the grand jury was announced. He said he's hoping that means that charges against Zimmerman will be announced soon. "We want to believe that this would be a positive sign that the prosecutor has enough information to arrest Trayvon Martin's killer," Mr. Crump told USA Today. "The family is really trying hard to be patient and have faith in the system." P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Another article I had skimmed through said something about how that signified Zimmerman would not be charged, but this clears it up for me.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Creationism and...Spock?

God damnit the stupid hurts. --Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Other episodes in the series include such totally existent, not at all made up things as UFOs, ESP and the Loch Ness Monster. I don't think Kendoll is entirely clear on the concept of "acting." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, I remember that show from when I was a kid. That's gotta be more than 30 years old by now. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 00:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, we'd been ignoring Ken

for over a week.  He was stepping up the crazy to try and get us to comment on him.  It's ruined, now.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but when you see stupid like that, you gotta say somthing. Its like jersey shore. Ken is the "jersey shore" of rationalwiki.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable--"Shut up, Brx." 01:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is reminding me to go to the star trek page and talk about feminist ideas in the original series. I think when I do, I'll dedicate the edit to Ken.±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 01:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the first interracial kiss on television and the egalitarian, one-nation society that defines 23rd century Earth. -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What's more scientifically trustworthy? An actor doing a voice over for a 1970s credulous and sensational tv show about mysteries and myths or the consensus reached by all modern scientists based on all evidence collected so far? "Oh oh oh!" Says Ken, "I know! I know! It's the actor, right? Is it the actor?" No, Kenny boy, I'm afriad not. Would you like a second guess? You can have three. Jaxe (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reckon it might be a decent idea just to ignore Ken entirely? You know, put mentioning him into a similar category to Godwin just to see how stupid he can actually get? Despite all that I've seen, I maintain that it's only possible to get to a certain level of stupid. -- 10:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If they are relying on Star Trek to prove points I can't wait for Andy to use it to prove faster than light travel is possible and hence relativity is bunkum. Генгис^pillaging 15:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama's Religion

Is there any reason Conseravapedia has declared Obama as "probably" a Muslim, while still making a big deal about his long-time association with Christian pastor Jeremiah Wright?? Mind Boggles--WickerGuy (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Because shut up--il'Dictator Mikal 01:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone could be that stupid or bigoted, it's got to be another attention grabbing ploy to see if he can get 30 seconds of screentime anywhere. Now Mitt's going to wrap up the nomination I think Andy's written off the election and is going all out for any publicity he can get. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Doublethink, anyone? Sophie^{because liberals} 09:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

“”To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink. - 1984

Yeah, that sounds about right. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Very simple answer. Jeremiah Wright is a muslim. Deny this and lose all credibility.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 10:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Develop a mind-warping theory involving Schroedinger's Cat, Doublethink and Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle- so Obama can be both Christian and Muslim at the same time depending upon who is considering the matter at the time and when. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Spock!

first time ive cared what ken said for a long while^imgif only because he has appropriated another atheist into a theist. also becausethat picture^img is a little creepy. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Every time I find something lulz worthy on CP that might be of interest to RW... I stop and ask myself "has this been posted already?". You should try it. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

this place has been near dead of late, what do you want from me. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He has used that image in several of his previous "essays", so it isn't anything new. He is really trying to get our attention lately. We should ignore.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you have just added this to the previous thread? Генгис^pillaging 15:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Havent payed much attention to wIGOcp of late so didnt notice it was there. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Spock is a fictional character who is most likely an atheist due to the logic of it. Leonard Nimoy is the actor who played Spock. Try again Andru. Jimaginator (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Supposedly, Vulcans have a vaguely explained religion involving temples, sacred spots, priests, and prayers. I don't recall any indication of whether or not Spock practices though. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

They had a pantheon. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As the source said, only until the awakening. Spock was an agnostic atheist. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As it also says (specifically about "present" Vulcans rather than mythology), Vulcans seem to have some religion-like thing going on, but there doesn't seem to be any indication of whether or not Spock believes it. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So likely to be somewhat Church of England - hatch, match and despatch, and up to you if you wish to be 'high and crazy', 'broad and hazy' or 'low and lazy' (or whichever seems logical at the time.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How will Andy spin this?

Santorum is suspending his campaign, which is just short of admitting defeat. He probably saw the writing on the wall for the April 24th primaries where he would lose all five states, including his home state of Pennsylvania to Romney. This suspension basically gives Romney a free pass from here on out (unless Santorum jumps back in, but he has already given Romney the boost he needed to win the convention). The real question is, how will Andy and Conservapedia spin this massive blow to their wet dreams of a "true conservative" candidate running against Obama?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe he's dropping out because his daughter is sick, and Andy will probably stick to that as well.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Its possible Andy will go that route; hopefully he has the decency to do that without taking some sort of political pot shot.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Theres also the possibility he will revert to the position he held pre-florida and rick gets to be a pro-abort rino--il'Dictator Mikal 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

HA! Nice one, BMcP. Anyway, there's a million ways Andy can spin this. He'll have Frothy being the victim/martyr/whatever and the liberals will be the villains. This gives him carte blanche to bitch about everything, now that we're looking at a race between a liberal and a RINO. This, of course, is just the way he likes it. I think Andy's personal hell would be a completely conservative world, as he'd have nothing to bitch about or blame liberals for, and his life would be utterly purposeless. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what Andy wants. Obama will probably win the election; if he'd done it by beating Andy's true conservative pick, that would be really hard to spin. That he'll win by beating a RINO means Andy can spend 4 years crowing about how the GOP failed by not picking a conservative. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is in^img and it begins^img. -- sethpeck

That's what she said! P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Will this departure perhaps pave the way for the cp:Gingrich Administration? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For sure. Sarah Palin is primed and ready to be the best darned secretary of state the US has ever had. Just as soon as someone explains to her what the secretary of state does. In the mean time, Andy waits by the phone for the call to appoint him attorney general. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Alejandro is already doing it for Andy: CP predicted Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney. CP proven right!^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Santorum went from lord. saviour and messiah back to being a filthy RINO in record time. Andy's ability to turn on a dime is truly a thing to behold. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're pulling that out of your ass. Santoroum is still high and mighty in Andy's eyes. Always will be. Remember how noble Sarah Palin was when she quit? "Suspending" his campaign only shows how strong his character is. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

andy disagrees--il'Dictator Mikal 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's what I get for trying to think crazy. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So much for Andy having any decency; I shouldn't be remotely surprised.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised either, but you have to admit that this turnabout really is "striking", as Andy would say. There's even still visible news items on MPR that tout Santorum as the true conservative saviour. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess Andy doing a complete 180 on his convictions because it's convenient means he's now supporting Romney? --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pointing and laughing finger at the ready

I'd like to take a moment to point and laugh at Rob, who confidently predicted based on the fact he had his ear to the ground with the common people, that Santorum would be the nominee. I guess up here in our ivory tower we like to call "reality", we aren't so bad at spotting obvious trends after all. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob is an idiot; what he thinks is of no import. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob who? Генгис^pillaging 20:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Whats a Rob? Ace^Moderator 22:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Did he ever figure out how fish were priced? 97.100.4.137 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

By using scales. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What will Andy do now?

A pointless poll for your clicking pleasure.

Reconcile himself to the reality that Mittens is the anointed one and start bigging him up.	34	Vote
Revert to Newt as the Not-Romney of the week.	33	Vote
Retreat in to a fantasy of convention chaos, with Jeb Bush coming out on top.	39	Vote
Realise Mittens is soulless automaton and endorse Obama.	1	Vote
Run for president himself.	3	Vote
Goat	6	Vote

Incidentally, I'm amazed that so far 25 people have voted on a Schlafly-related sentence that has the words "reconcile" and "reality" in such close proximity. Junggai (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I lold--"Shut up, Brx." 13:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Usually Andy's brand of crazy is fairly predictable, but for the life of me I can't decide between the top three options. Then it hit me. The answer is the top three options...all at the same time. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Still dreaming of a brokered convention

Fire up the Gingrich Administration!!^img P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the Gingrich "campaign" just bounced a $500 check to Utah, this is a remarkable denial of reality. Although Andy has very handily decided that his "predictions" are whatever he believes as soon as it's obvious so he's always "right." Despite Jeb Bush's complete lack of entrance into the race after being Andy's frontrunner.--^talk 05:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Even for Andy, this is some pretty impressive doublethink. Santorum (the "true conservative") backs Obama over Romney. Newt, who is more conservative than Romney, accepts Santorum's supporters with open arms. But a long, long time ago (while Andy was still dreaming of the Gingrich administration), he slighted Santorum by calling him a stalking horse for Romney. So now, It is the Truth. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Cooking oil

Yeah, he has a point, but his refusing to admit defeat is just classic Andy^img--"Shut up, Brx." 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, are you bringing up your own activity on CP over here? For Christ's sake, it's not 2007 anymore, That shit is old. And lame. You should be embarassed for yourself. I'm embarassed for you. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What crawled up your ass, anyways? If you aren't interested in this particular goings on at Conservapedia, then you don't need to comment on it.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

We've had a long tradition of not WIGO'ing or otherwise calling attention to one's own activities on CP. You go against that, you're gonna get called out on it. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 01:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is different. "One's own activities" has always referred to vandalism and trolling. My activities on CP are in good faith only. And I'm not commenting on myself, but rather on Andy.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not different. Still calling attention to your trolling Andy. And it's not "in good faith," because people who have "good faith" conversations don't use those conversations to make their interlocutors look bad behind their backs. That's kind of the opposite of "good faith," you moron. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 01:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Both Larron and BMCP discussed their own exasperating conversations with Andy here. It's only a breach of etiquette for juvenile activities. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Foster, you're so fucking butthurt. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lawyers and Truth

A few weeks ago I had an exchange on Wikipedia about lawyers in fringe fields. He pointed out that most of the more educated advocates of the theory that Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare's plays were lawyers. I then pointed out that most of the more educated advocates of creationism were also lawyers. Now, I have just discovered Andrew Schlafly is a lawyer. Here is what the other fellow said on my Talk page on Wikipedia [[2]^img]

I've just realised I never replied to your question about why so many lawyers are anti-Strats. I think there are several reasons for it. Initially I think, it was linked to the fact that Francis Bacon was the main alternative candidate - and Bacon was a lawyer. There were several attempts to prove that Shakespeare had specialist legal knowledge. However, it was a lawyer who first proposed Marlowe in 1895, and it's lawyers (and journalists) who have been most assiduous in promoting Oxford. I think it has to do with the practice for creating "alternative theories of the crime" in the Anglo-American adversarial system - a tendency to try to pick holes in evidence to undermine an apparently established case and to create a new model by weaving together evidence to overturn "convictions" as it were. My guess is that lawyers derive pleasure from undermining traditional accepted ideas about cultural tradition in the same way as they enjoy overturning convictions, or slipping evidence in or getting it excluded. I'm sure that many of them genuinely believe that these kinds of legal methods are applicable to cultural history and they can genuinely use their skills to overturn established ideas. It happens within the 'mainstream' too. Eric Sams wasn't a lawyer, but he had similar beliefs: that his forensic logic coming from outside literary academe would cut through tired old established ideas and create new paradigms.

--WickerGuy (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a Lawyers and woo to go alongside Engineers and woo? Sophie^{because liberals} 10:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks enormously for calling my attention to this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it even worth mentioning.

We need another category: A while ago, this might have been a WIGO. Then it wasn't WIGO-able, so someone would point and laugh from the WIGO talk page. Maybe we need a talk page for the talk page for when we get a reminder that every earthquake reminds us of a young Earth^img. This is my favorite Andyism, besides "Castro's dead." earthquakes are not increasing, but increasing earthquakes are evidence for something that's patently false. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 14:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea (e.g. one Andyquake thread to rule them all), but it sounds like the CP-related pages that the cabal is currently on a head hunt for. Maybe sticky? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was actually kidding about creating another page for this sort of thing. I'm just amazed and amused that after 5 + years, a guy is saying incredibly insane and stupid things under his own name. For anyone unfamiliar with Schlafly, that edit that I just posted would blow their minds; they'd tell their friends about the weirdo they saw on the 'net today. We might see 2-3 of those a week, if not more, and have been doing so for years. At what point does it become totally unremarkable? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It won't so long as conservapedia remains a obscure wikipedia-rival. Enough people find it that word moves around, but not enough people find it that sustained visiting to see the insanity happens--il'Dictator Mikal 14:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Favourite Andyism? So many to choose from. It's between black holes being a liberal conspiracy, Jesus disproves relativity and Obama's lack of dancing proves he's a Muslim. Saying any one of those things would make a person look crazy and Andy said all three. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's "I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that"^img might be my all-time favorite. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

War on Women

The main page linked to this article on CP^img, and after reading the entire article, I feel the need to point out that two wrongs don't make a right. Per the first sentence: ''War on Women'' is a campaign narrative crafted and promoted by the Democrat Party for the 2012 election cycle. Logical responses might be to complain about the Democrats' "War on Marriage," "War on Family," "War on Working People," "War on Jobs," "War on Religion," etc. The problems in the actual argument aside, this entire line of reasoning is disturbing to me. άλφα^Ταλκ 00:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

CP is rotting my brain

I just saw a web ad for a car insurance company, with pictures of various annoyed-looking animals and the caption "these animals do not approve of your poor car insurance choices."

And I'm finding it reminiscent of Ken's "women and atheism" articles. Sigh. They're rotting my brain, I tell you. MDB (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait... Merkins pick their car insurance based on what animals think? --PsyGremlin講話 11:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't. That was already my car insurance company. MDB (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I compare the meerkats, I'd have though a Seffriken would do the same. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Pah! Bunch of pussies, using rabies-infested vermin. We use hippos for our insurance. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Birtherism Fails Again

And Tossbooty is not pleased^img--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 12:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's my reply to Terry's article. I know he won't allow it on his site.

No, Terry, there is another way “anyone can really lose to an empty chair”, besides the system being rigged, and if your head wasn’t so deep into your posterior region, you’d see it.

Consider an example: let’s say I went to court and said I was, oh, the rightful heir to the Howard Hughes estate. My arguments are based on extremely debatable legal theories, ones that have already been rejected in numerous other courts.

The people who have been found to be Hughes’ heirs (twenty two of them, according to Wikipedia) wouldn’t have to send a huge team of high-paid attorneys; they could just send one associate from a law firm, probably fresh out of law school, who would simply say “your honor, this is all ludicrous.” And the judge would laugh me out of court.

See the analogy, Terry? You lost to an “empty chair” because your case is so ridiculous — just like EVERY OTHER TIME birthers have managed to waste a few hours of the court’s time. (Ironic, considering the right’s usual whining about ridiculous law suits. But I digress.) You keep losing and losing and losing, time and again, but you keep coming back for more.

But again, as I’ve said to you before, in comments you lack the guts to post, keep it up. Please, continue to demonstrate how pathetic American conservatism has become. MDB (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the birthers' first reaction is to question the integrity of the courts. With each defeat, they move closer to the world of Godlike Productions. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

CNAV is far more fun than CP these days. Chuckarse, RoseAnn What'shername and that lackwit Bickel are hilarious. They are so blinkered that they cannot conceive of any reality beyond their bronze age fables and right wing paranoia, which means you usually don't have to spend more than ten seconds coming up with arguments to put them down. I gave up when he started requiring a real email address, but it's fun watching others pick up the ball. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hotmail Aliases are your friend there. You don't even have to look at the contents of the inbox for that alias, just select them all and hit delete.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"there is only one way that anyone can really lose to an empty chair, and that’s if the system is rigged"

Insanity like this gives me sick pleasure, for some reason. I should probably get that checked out. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm wondering if Terry is going to acknowledge that by his own twisted definition of citizenship, Romney is not a natural born citizen either. I know the California birthers sued the state over Romney's parentage, but I haven't seen it covered on his shitlog. Omar (gibber) 13:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For me, nothing will ever top Andy refusing to admit that Rubio wouldn't satisfy Andy's definition of a NBC, only saying that he "had a better claim to NBC than Obama" with no qualifications. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tossbooty already stated that since rmoneys grandfather, who abondoned America, was an American citizen, its okay for romney to run. It was from a blog post a few months back and I'M not sifting through the muck to find it.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 14:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The defense centers around the lack of record for G Romney renouncing his US citizenship, which everyone knows is done explicitly, right before you avoid federal charges by high-tailing it to Mexico with all your wives. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Renunciation requires that you leave the country first since, along with your citizenship, you will lose right of entry to the US and that wouldn't be very effective if you were already in the US. These days they're also a bit more careful about ensuring you have some other citizenship first (if you renounce your only citizenship and it "works" then you are now stateless and have no right of abode anywhere in the world, all UN members have agreed to avoid creating more stateless persons because they're a bureaucratic pain in the neck). I get the impression that most applications to renounce US citizenship at a US embassy are aborted once the applicant properly understands how screwed they would be if they went through with it. 188.220.41.110 (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Terry can't recognize a parodist, either

Just like his buddy Andy. One poster wrote:

Yes, it’s rigged, but that’s the point. We want this man to be our president, Terry. I don’t care if he was born on the moon. Obama is what is best for this country at the time and the courts agree unanimously. It’s people like you who spur the will of the people (and the courts) who make me sick. If the best man to lead this country out of the mess conservatives got us into isn’t a “natural born citizen”, who in their right mind would care? Only a bigoted racist, that’s who.

And Terry took it at face value, responding:

I appreciate your candor. Really, I do. So refreshing. I do so respect brass more than hypocrisy.

MDB (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I know it's Ken and all.....

but there is nothing here linking atheism with youth obesity^img. The "article" lists the rates of atheism and agnostics among age demographics, followed by a section about youth obesity and finishes up with a section on joblessness. Complete disconnection. Ace^Moderator 04:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

He's boring. Andy's more interesting.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up. What are you? the funny police. Yeah. Ace^Moderator

No, you shut the fuck up. One-string banjo boy is playing the corner and nobody's watching him because the main act is on.--Brendiggg (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, you guys. That string's gonna break soon. He's gonna run out of things to link atheism to. -- 10:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure there's years worth of material in his tiny little brain. Here's some ideas, Kendoll. Atheism and grand larceny, atheism and art deco, atheism and holidays in Blackpool, atheism and mint chocolate, atheism and radiation safety film badges, etc. etc. etc. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really capturing the salaciousness and distastefulness there, I think. Atheism and Satanism, Atheism and Body Odor, Atheism and Gambling Addiction, Atheism and Child Prostitution, Atheism and Hemorrhoids. That sort of thing, right? Phiwum (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason people here are dismissive of this is that "essay" is just another rehashing of his old "Atheist and obesity" "essay" that's been around for over a year. This one trick pony Kenny keeps dressing up with different saddles in hopes to appear creative, relevant, and informative to the unaware and ignorant all stems from the same Gallop web article. The article itself simply states the "very religious" have a slightly higher percentage of their total population who fall under the category of "healthy behavior", but the difference between them and "nonreligious" isn't that significant. Kenny took this factoid and made a bullshit sandwich out of it, but the originality train left the station a long time ago, now he just says the same thing over and over using slightly different flavors of word salad. That is why it isn't funny anymore, because no one wants to here the same old boring joke everyday; Andy brings fresh new funnies. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

True. It's the same old same old that seasoned Conservapedia watchers have seen time and again. The utter bollocks that Andy has come up with recently has at least been a lot less predictable than this rehash.--Spud (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken is officially the most boring and least relevant of Andy's cohort. Which takes some doing when your competition is Hurlbut, who does nothing but link-whore and Karajou, who does nothing but banhammer. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess anyone with one specific fixation is going to be boring. Ken seems to be fixated on insults. He delights in calling people he doesn't like fat, stupid, unsuccessful, etc. While that is goofy, it gets boring because he seems to be doing the same thing to every person he criticizes. From what I have seen from my month here, Andy does a variety of things to a variety of topics, hopping through every ridiculous hoop imaginable to make points that he isn't even solid on understanding in the first place. More variety = more exciting, I guess. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 13:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy and Ken are actually very similar in their process.

Ken has his goals in mind (prove atheists are unattractive, prove atheists are dumb, etc.) and so he finds some bit of information or half-chewed statistic, and connects that number/quote/whatever with his goal with a short but firm line: FACT: P.Z. Meyers is an atheist and overweight ----> FACT: All atheists are overweight. It's asinine and usually illogical, but easily understandable.

Andy is the same way. He has his goals in mind, usually one of his weekend insights (best of the public, homeschooling, teenagers are brilliant, etc.) and a news story or something else will come along. The difference is that while Ken's connections are stubby and direct (if wrong), Andy's are brilliant twisty scrawls. His connections snarl with past ideas, loop around and get lost, and swirl around like a Spirograph. FACT: Moral relativity is wrong-----\/\/\/\/---wwwwww%#%&$&%&----> FACT: Relativity in physics causes abortion.

It's wondrous. Andy is a treasure, Ken is a thug.--^talk 13:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything I'm reading in this "essay" only screams to me "We live in a shallow society that values what you believe in and how you look more than what you are actually able to do!" and there's a second voice, I believe it to be Kenny directly, screaming "I'm an asshole!". --★uːʤɱ heretic 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken was an interesting novelty at one time but like last decade's internet meme he's now just an uninteresting nonentity. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 15:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

He is like that person who screams "IS A LIE" every time you use a sentence with the word "cake" in it, even though it's 2012.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I used to say the cake is a lie, but then I took an arrow in the knee. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheezburgers are lies, and I've seen enough anime to know where this conversation is going. FUS DO RAH! Challenge Accepted! Seems Legit! -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to murder people over the internet, yet? I want to murder two people over the internet. X Stickman (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the efficacy of bitcoin-based assassination markets. Anyone have any experience with something like that? Or SR? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken needs to write the article Homosexuals and Homosexuals next. Then he's done. --DogP (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote-Mining 101

Andy,

When you expose liberal deceit, as in "Bering Sea Shows Second Highest Ice Extent In Recorded Satellite History ... Hey Al, give back the Nobel Prize. Hey, Nobel Prize committee. you need to get politics out of your selection process."^img, you mustn't let the reader see the whole citation! You know, the one that explains the odd winds causing the anomaly and ends with

The Bering Sea stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Arctic ice cap, where sea ice extent was below average in both January and February. Ice cover was down drastically on the Atlantic Ocean side of the Arctic, including the Kara, Barents, and Laptev Seas, where air temperatures were 4 to 8 degrees Celsius (7 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) above the norm. Whoover (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had my beliefs in evolution, global warming, atheism, relativity, black holes and Obama's re-election strengthened by Andy more than anyone. Not that I was on shaky ground in the first place, but I've learned a lot by researching his stupidity. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have learned from the research of the idiocy of Andru too. Science goes where the truth leads, and it's just too damn bad if it doesn't match what you want to believe, what you hope is true, what everybody is saying, what scientists have said for years. It just IS. Jimaginator (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Andy works in an "all or nothing" way. One day of snow completely disproves global warming, just as one area of sea out of several with more ice than expected (even though all the others are showing less) is proof that global warming is wrong. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to support something; as long as there's one counterexample of any sort, it's completely and utterly wrong. X Stickman (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm not so sure it's 'all or nothing' so much as 'I know my ideas are right, so all I need are examples of them being right.' I am not sure there is such thing as him needing to prove anything in his mind. He just needs to show cases where it looks like he's right, ergo he's right and he knew it all along because duh he wouldn't think it if he was wrong. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 22:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's approach to the subject is exemplified by the first line of cp:Counterexamples to an Old_Earth. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 05:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It takes one counterexample to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. Well, that's me told then. That being the case, I had to see if it said the same thing at the start of cp:Counterexamples to the Bible but no. It says There are no counterexamples to the Bible. Awww, come on, surely there are thousands of them but in Schlaflyland just one piece of evidence that a single Bible story is true is all the evidence you need.

Incidentally, Andy, Al Gore didn't receive the Nobel Prize for chemistry or physics by proving that Global Warming is true. He received the Nobel Peace Prize, surely the most political of all the Nobel prizes. Asking those who select the Peace Prize winner to ignore the politics is like asking the Academy Awards to ignore the movies. --Spud (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what Andy's all about. "All or nothing" works for his beliefs and the beliefs of others. If he ever has to accept that the world is any less than 6000 years old, then all his worldview comes crashing down. Evolution happened, god doesn't exist, Jesus never walked on water, Tebow is just a guy, and there's nothing after death. All other belief systems work the same way. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Andy. He is perfectly correct when he says there are no counterexamples to the Bible. Like all successful religious tenets, it is neither provable nor disprovable so no counterexamples *can* exist. However, there is a very large list for "Counterexamples to Young Earth Creationism". Like the entire fields of Geology, Physics, Biology, Astronomy..... JC 19:46, 13 April 2012 (EST)

I'm not sure what "no counterexamples" means when Andy says there are so many mistakes in the Bible that it has to be rewritten. He deletes "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do" as too liberal to be correct. So it's not about the infallibility of the text, as with most True Believers. It's often wrong, but it can't be proven incorrect. This is what makes the Schalf such an interesting case. Whoover (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Rise of atheism in America

I wouldn't care if it weren't for Ken, but damn is this hilarious!--"Shut up, Brx." 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've always seen lower conservatives (as in, those that aren't rich) as motivated by two factors, fear and hate. As a result of this, you see two dominating concepts in lower conservative thought: "oppressed minority" and "silent majority." The first view is most often expressed as "secularism and big government is going to destroy us all!" and can be witnessed in this excellent Chick tract. The second is seen as a sort of bandwagon argument along the lines of "We're growing, and we're going to eradicate liberalism/homosexuality/socialisn/whatever!", combining propaganda appealing to herd mentality and hatred of something touted as insignificant (this need not correspond to reality- certain polls and studies will be presented, and others conveniently ignored, naturally). You'll see a lot of this on Conservapedia, with andy talking about all these great conservative athletes, Ken talking about how fundamentalists will overtake atheists, or JPatt claiming most women oppose health insurance contraception coverage mandates.^img

Hilariously, these two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Depending on how eloquent the proponent, you might see dialogues of varying dissonance about how the majority is oppressed but can easily win--"Shut up, Brx." 00:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You make some pretty good points, and I mostly agree, but that term "lower conservatives" just seems offensive and in bad taste. --JoeSchmo (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the field of Brx Studies, "lower conservative" refers to the conservative voter, as in, the one that isn't a bourgeois. I should probably find a better term. Thanks for the feedback!--"Shut up, Brx." 02:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

EC--Brxbrx? "Offensive and in bad taste?" Perish the thought. Why, Brxbrx here is a valued member of this community who would never stoop so low as to use slurs or epithets. To suggest otherwise, good sir, is simply worse than what happened to the Jews in Cordoba in 1138. Watch yourself. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 02:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of the craziest stupidity from Andy re: Relativity

Andy finally answer a question that has be presented to him again and again over the last few years: If GPS don't make adjustments due to relativity, what is it due to? Andy's answer.... the uncertainty principle! Oh my god, the stupid. Ace^Moderator 03:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the name tip you off Andy? How can you synchronize clocks to something that is fundamentally uncertain? If you know what the difference is going to be then you can't know when to synchronize and if you know when to synchronize you can't pin down what the difference is going to be. Jesus wept. Ace^Moderator 03:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Andy must think Heisenberg compensators are real. Godspeed (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just read the link. Andy's really talking about the uncertainties in quantum mechanics, which, as everybody knows, prevent perpetual motion machines. This has something to do with GPS. Huhhhhhh? Godspeed (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

See this is where I have to just ignore Andy. Why? Because this is what I do for a living. I have a fair amount of knowledge about the GPS constelation in general, and the GPS-III system currently under development in particular. I know these machines intamately. Andy has absolutely zero clue what he's talking about. None. I just want to slap him every time he states, with supreme confidence, how a system he knows nothing about, which employs physics he doesn't understand, "actually" works. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hah, you and your so-called expertise. Andy is a best of the public when it comes to these matters and that trumps you all. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 15:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My favourite abuse of quantum mechanics from Andy was from Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. Apparently, "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not" so when Jesus was walking on water he was unaffected by gravity because he was in a wave state and thus demonstrating wave-particle duality two millennia before scientists knew about it^img. You have to give it to Andy, his shit can be quite creative. The problem with this, well one of the problems with this, is that waves are subject to gravity. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That'd be awesome if Wavestate Jesus^TM wasn't effected by gravity. Then the legend wouldn't be about Him walking on water, but instead it would be about the day Jesus said "Check this out-" then suddenly hurtled off the face of the Earth at over a 67,000 miles per hour. --Inquisitor (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You have to admit though, that would be a much fucking cooler Christ. *Whoooooosh*.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 09:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's getting really good. Andy responded to a bunch of citations that the GPS corrections are relativistic with "Hearsay!" And somebody else explained that hearsay is a legal concept that non-lawyers, like Andy, don't understand. Whoover (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny, coming from the guy who used a private dinner conversation from 16 years earlier as a motherfuckin' citation^img in a legal article. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

He reminds me of Charlie Kelly vis a vis bird law. Cow...Hammer^time! 23:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you make of AugustO's last comment^img: For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science!? Is this a reference to pulling stuff out of his ass? Whoover (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, this is in reference to August's long standing disagreement with Andy over stuff at conservative bi(b)le project. C®ackeЯ

D-GPS

I wonder if The Assfly is getting confused with the uncertainty that civilian-gps used to have (until it got turned of during the 1990s Gulf War, the reason being squadies were using civilian-gps as there weren't enough military-gps units available). Unlike Quantum Uncertainty, the error in civilian-gps is caused by a deliberate small (and slowly changing) error in the time stamp sent by the satellites which causes a gps receiver at rest to think that it is slowly drifting around. All receivers in the same area (upto about 100miles) will have the same error, if a receiver is kept still it can average to its exact location over several days. It can then transmit the current error it is receiving, thus allowing nearby receivers to calculate their location to a few centimetres. Or for surveying, you can plant a receiver in one corner of a field, and a mobile receiver can tell the difference between their locations to a few millimetres. If it was Quantum Uncertainty, then each receiver would have a different error and it would jump around faster than the gps uncertainty. CS Miller (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. As a keen mountaineer I'm familiar with the kind of GPS you descrive and the effect they used to have. That would be a classic error on Schlafly's part if it is - it does sound like it. StarFish (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it's anything as sophisticated as that. Asclafly's thinking is as simple as:

Relativity is bad, yet GPS works, therefore GPS does not use any calculations that take relativity into account. But I can't see how quantum mechanics or the uncertainty principal can undermine belief in my the best of the public's literal translation of the Bible so I'll use that instead to explain any time keeping discrepancy that is programmed into the GPS systems, cite logic, and call out any actual evidence as hearsay. My brother is insane wrong and I rock. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is CP not child-safe according to World of Trust??

I just added the following to the main RationalWiki article on Conservapedia

Conservapedia has a low user rating on the Internet's "World of Trust" a browser plug-in which warns users when ever they are about to navigate to an untrustworthy site. The rating is based on polling users of the plug-in, and sites are rated on four criteria, trustworthiness, vendor reliability, privacy, and child safety. The only category in which Conservapedia ranks high is privacy. It is unclear why it ranks low on child safety.

So just why does it rank low on child safety?? Humorous and serious answers both welcome. I trust that here we can tell them apart.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that there was a lot of opposition from otherwise supportive users when Ken started plastering his bestiality "articles" everywhere. If I recall correctly, a number of the older comments suggest that the site is not save for children because of the blatant falsehoods all over. Also, use of rotten.com as a source. Omar (gibber) 17:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I could actually well imagine that (somewhat ironically) many right-wing folk might consider it less than safe for children because of the sheer number of articles about homosexuality as well. 81.151.248.126 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

When you have a huge section dedicated solely to talking about people who like to shag the family dog, it is easy to see why people would want to keep their children away from the site. As for trustworthiness? Well even Christians can see how far Andy and company are willing to twist the facts to try and shove the square peg of their worldview through the round hole of reality. How much of established science has Andy declared to be noting but "liberal clap trap"? He even believes there is a "conservative version" of mathematics! Putting all of this aside, Christians typically take an extremely dim view of people who attempt to rewrite their sacred, divine holy book in some thinly-veiled attempt to have it endorse a particular political ideology tied to the modern time period and for a single nation.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the unsafe ratings were doled out by the same folks responsible for the clickbots. Not that I think Conservapedia is good for kids, mind you.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Vulpius (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a paedosmile if ever I saw one. --Fergus Mason (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Because some kids, not having learned critical thinking yet, might believe some of the bullshit on the site? -- 18:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I guessing you meant "Web of Trust" which you can get here as a firefox addon. Before you go to a site you can look at the comments some users have left. Interesting looking at the comments people leave about CP and RW. It seems that we are far more trustworthy than CP. Who would have thought it?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow! RWW is even more trustworthy then either RW or CP!!--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's following the hockey playoffs...

...and again, a team sport is reduced to one guy.^img. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 21:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Aw, that's cute. Not to play his game, but I wonder what the other goalie's religion is. He was playing an even better game, up until he missed that one shot in overtime (29 saves to Andy's boy's 17). He's also a third-stringer. If he's Catholic, and his team had won, it would be a miracle and an example of God's sense of humor, I bet. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Reducing a team to a single player? Gretzky, please! --24.212.154.38 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

GOD DAMN IT ANDY, LEAVE MY BRUINS ALONE. Go play with whatever new york team new jersey gets stuck with.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We in the UK would never reduce a team sporting event to a single player. Sophie^{because liberals} 09:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if he's also a fan of Christian goaltender Dan Ellis, famous for speaking out about his own "conservative" problems. Q0 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken's use of oversight

After this edit^img I can't help but wonder what recent changes must look like for Conservapedia sysops. Must be like the cop said in Blues Brothers after he pulled over Elwood. It's like a rash all over the computer--"Shut up, Brx." 03:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what old coke-eyes thinks about Ken trashing his ideological heroine? Isn't Atlas Shrugged the greatest book ever written? Well, after the Bible of course. Генгис^pillaging 07:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, The Fountainhead is entry number forty on the list of 'greatest Conservative Novels'.^img So Ken's latest power play is in clear opposition to the rest of the 'encyclopaedia'. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 08:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oldie but a goodie...

Found in my bookmarks this^img. Contrast with current article. I fell off my stool laughing. ħuman 03:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Somehow, that's far more compelling.--Brendiggg (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Captured for when Kenny gives it a scouring. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 04:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I feared that would be the price of posting it... ħuman 16:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it really did get purged...lovely. It's always been a favorite of mine, too. (It's also here, fwiw.) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 06:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now everybody in this train car are giving me strange looks. Vulpius (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Photoshops

Ken got called out on some crappy photoshops (truly crappy). Brian banned the guy. August protested.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

link^img--"Shut up, Brx." 06:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they are 'shopped, just small postcards snapped with a wide angle lens; otherwise, why use sticky tape? I'm sure most people wouldn't even notice them. Генгис^pillaging 07:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the pics look funny, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they're photoshops.--"Shut up, Brx." 07:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone nearby with a camera to confirm if they/were there and the actual size of them? Two doesn't seem like the tsunami/raging inferno, gas pedal/other useless metaphor that Kenny has been predicting for months with no detectable effect. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 08:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Those pictures look very shopped to me. The kighting looks different on the background and on the poster. Also the background looks more dated - possibly analogue whereas the poster looks digital - it even has pixelation on it. Trying to pin it down exactly but certainly looks highly suspect. StarFish (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I can tell it's a shoop, from the pixels and from having seen many shoops in my time--"Shut up, Brx." 13:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If I click on that link, it won't take me to ED, will it? It better not. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 13:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The URL is pretty explicit. It definitely links to ED. It links to a very brief article about a meme concerning scrutiny of alleged photoshops. There are a number of images of this meme in the gallery.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shame. You were doing so well. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 13:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh god Brxbrx is a noxious idiot. In any event, I don't see the pics being shopped. Whoever Karaturd blocked claimed there was no place to post one of them in front of the Melbourne subway station but a quick Google streetview shows an advertising kiosk thinger in front of the 7-11 exactly where the photo would have been taken. I didn't bother looking at the other one after the first claim didn't stand up to scrutiny. Melbourne is the only city on earth I'd expect CMI's laughable "campaign" to be advertised, as it's the only city on earth where there are more than like 2 adherents to CMI's cult religion in one place. 13:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel like taking the Andy/birther route. Those images are shooped and I know it. Why won't they release the hard copy? Because it doesn't exist, that's why. Until the original film is in the hands of forensic experts, I'm not convinced this isn't all a sham. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh who cares whether they're real or not. Even assuming they are it's the only shred of evidence Ken's ever been able to point to that this "campaign" even exists away from his blog and CMI's cult site. 2 pictures of bumper stickers. Lol. 16:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And jesus fuck reading that blog without CP glasses on must be an even more surreal experience for non-pilgrims. Tall ladies. Gah. 16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I showed it (and the questions) to the local college branch of the student Secular alliance, always fun to see new people see the insanity. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I ran both of Ken's images through JPEGsnoop and they've been shopped all right. Probably with The Gimp. --Fergus Mason (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Not impressed. Normal image cropping or color correction will show up as being shopped by image analysis software like JPEGsnoop. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite right, but given his dribbling illiteracy and the shoddiness of his graphics I doubt that Ken would have bothered with that. --Fergus Mason (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To me it doesn't matter if they're shopped or not. What's more pathetic... photoshopping yourself next to a woman and claiming that she's your girlfriend- OR - going out on the street, taking a picture with a random woman, and make claims that she's your girlfriend? Anyway, no matter what, some human expended calories to give the impression that more than 8 people on the planet give a shit about this stupid QE campaign. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Is CP still meant to be an encyclopedia?

Poor old Joaquin. Nobody else gives a shit. Генгис^pillaging 07:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I still remember this.^img He really thinks "lighter" is good.--"Shut up, Brx." 07:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a tale, some say a myth, that hidden deep in the bowels of Conservapedia, beneath Andy's insights on everything from Castro's death to conservative mathematics, the unnaturally large number of what are now recognised as unsuitable articles for children on homosexuality, the ever-growing question evolution campaign which seems to offer no evidence of growing ever, the regular accusations of Obama being a muslim one day and an atheist the next, the terabytes of blocked IPs and used-up usernames, their crimes ranging from wiki-vandalism to pointing out facts, main page right's "breaking news" feed spanning seven page lengths and featuring more than 80 headlines from the past week, Conservapedia's "quick link" section at the bottom of main page left, the woefully hilarious groundbreaking essay Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? detailing his failure with hispanic ladies and loathing of chunky peanut butter, and of course the high profile, ambitiously executed Conservative Bible Project, completed several months before the predicted deadline but which is still somehow awaiting major publication, they retain a small number of articles from the old days when they were actually trying to build an encyclopedia. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 09:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it does still say "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" in the logo. Mind you, if they suddenly dropped the word "encyclopedia" and changed their slogan to something like "Bringing you the TRUTH that the lamestream media won't print" or "The TRUTH that lamestream scientists don't want you to read", I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.--Spud (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It says pretty much that at the top of MPR; "what the MSM isn't fully covering", linking to MSM where the first sentence reads "The mainstream media (MSM), also humorously known by many of its very large number of vocal critics as the lamestream media, are the increasingly liberal media organs that censor the dissemination of news." El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fun fact: It is literally impossible to put enough quotation marks around the word "humorously" in that sentence, as trying to do so would take the fastest typist in the world longer than the universe has left. They would still be tapping away at the keyboard as the universe experienced heat death. X Stickman (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention "very large number" being redefined as "Schlafly and Jpatt" --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical physicist

I thought that was nearer a tautology... Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 07:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I always figured you couldn't have your physics without your maths--"Shut up, Brx." 07:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You can, but in general the result sucks.

Anyway, though mathematicians and physicists talk a lot about the same things their approaches tends to differ (their terminology and notation can as well, which can get annoying). To first approximation, physicists see mathematics as a tool to help them with their theories. To mathematicians, it's a land. It's their job to construct edifices with solid foundations and explore the boundaries. Mathematicians tend to be pedantically rigorous. Physicists, on the other hand, can sometimes be sloppy. I've read one common physics method described as "mathematical sin". Of course, there's a lot of overlap between the two fields and some of the best physicists have also been mathematicians and vice versa. There's nothing oxymoronical about 'mathematical physicist'. Andy's just mad that physicists rejected the Newcomb-Hall hypothesis because it was quite ad hoc and, more importantly, was contradicted by the data.--Night Jaguar (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory link Bob Soles (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And that is why I intend to be a bio-mathematician. Squeeze the rest out. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 09:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Do bio-mathematicians dream of spherical cows? --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Triangular leaves, perhaps. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 09:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've said it 1,000 times, and this makes me want to say it again. Andy's fucking crazy. And it seems like it's getting worse. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

He is having rather a vintage year. CP is actually interesting again. Sophie^{because liberals} 16:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Physics is supposed to be crunchy and not elegant like mathematicians favor. This is all about the Inverse Square Law, which Andy argues should be the Inverse Squarish Law, with power 1.99999 or 2.00001. He's not sure which it is, but integers are liberal. Whoover (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

CP continues to replace television!

Ken reminds us that CP will eventually triumph over that evil liberal device known as the TV^img--il'Dictator Mikal 23:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop posting about lame paro- Wait, no...

Is there a word for what Ken is doing, given that he's not a parodist but will still do the same things in the hope of attracting our attention? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't unique to ken, he's just the one who posted it this time, I think it's an andy delusion actually. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a parodist thing to parrot andyisms, but Ken here is no parodist but is still doing so in the hope of attracting our (your) attention. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 00:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The younger aren't buying them, they use their computer monitors to "watch television". 2. "Throwing away" indeed. I got a nice Zenith 25" 19th century tube device, with remote, for free at the dump. ħuman 03:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that he's decided to start a pointless fight with Hurlbut, Ken could well be trying to say to Andy, "Look! I've got the same ideas as you! You'll be on my side against TerrH, won't you?" All the same, there's nothing new in Conservapedia sysops echoing each other's pet thingumies (Karajou's cartoon of a fat PZ Myers, for example). I doubt that even parroting the same phrases is unique to parodists and Ken.--Spud (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There's actually a much easier explanation behind all this: Ken is preparing for war against Hurlbut, given his latest MPR screed^img so he's playing "let's make sure Andy is on my side by echoing his crazy toe talking points" card. --PsyGremlinPrata! 10:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I said.--Spud (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you did. I like you. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I like you too.--Spud (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

For Ken's sake. Get a room, you two. Генгис^pillaging 11:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Is there a word for what Ken is doing..." How about "trolling"?

Is there even any reason to try and gain Andy's favour in this? He won't intervene, just like he didn't with Rob and Ken. It'll just play out until one of them gives up. Andy is a huge e-pussy. X Stickman (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, database lock

Just a little bit of vandalism, and he hits the switch--"Shut up, Brx." 18:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

More likely he saw you editing and hit the switch. If only we could do that here... TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. When are you going to fuck off, Brxbrx? 19:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

When we ban his ass.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

CP Down?

Anyone else having trouble accessing CP? I keep getting "connection reset" errors. --_transResident Transfan^form! 22:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 22:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you try this site in the future. It's usually right, except maybe in the case where a site is simply slow, but not down--"Shut up, Brx." 22:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Flingbooty vs. User: Conservative WIGO.

Our boy amps it up a bit...^img P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 14:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The sad part is that even someone as insane as Kendoll has the requisite antipathy towards Ayn Rand. It's the ostensibly healthy ones like Chuckarse who worship at the altar of I'm All Right, Jack. I really hope Kendoll picks this one up and runs with it. It should be interesting to see Chuckare's utopia interspersed with incoherent rants about how fat Ayn Rand was. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I know it's wrong to take pleasure from this, but I'd love to see a similar showdown as we saw between Rob and Ken. I think Ken would lose this one. Terry is one of Andy's personal friends, I believe.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I like how Ken sticks rubbish about Rand into an article on one of her books. Still, now that I've brought it up here, I'm sure he'll fix that. Not sure about the "personal friends" bit. Terry has a slavish fixation on Andy and follows him around, but he does that with anybody who ticks the same boxes he does. I doubt whether Andy has close friends. Like Mr Teatime, I don't think he has the knack. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "Teatime," it's "Teh-ah-tim-eh." --Fergus Mason (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Andy would consider friendship at all in his attempt at mediation. And I don't believe Andy considers Terry a friend. Andy sees himself higher than that. Terry just rides "Andy's coattails" and Andy enjoys being admired/worshiped. In Andy's mind, he probably thinks Ken has a bigger ball to take home. Terry links to blog posts on MPR. "Ken gets traffic". Occasionaluse (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least Andy has met Chucky in real life. I suspect that the only other editor at CP who has ever met Ken is Anupam as they're both from Buffalo. Генгис^pillaging 16:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I love that Ken is such a pathetic and prideful creature that he's taking all this attention as a dare to create unnecessary trouble. He's cracked. 15:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I like to think there's a piece of him that's like us, and that he thinks it's hilarious to see how much shit he can stir and how clean he can stay while doing it. Ken uses Andy as much as Andy uses Ken. It's almost symbiotic. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But it really does say a lot about Andy, doesn't it. Ken is a disgustingly dishonest person, shitting on everything he can get his hands on, yet Andy doesn't have the good sense to realize that the only attention CP gets is negative attention focused mostly on his relativity hardon and Ken's absurd bigotry. 16:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As OC has pointed out, any 'fight' between Ken and Terry ends with a dominant victory in Ken's favour. All Ken has to do is prey on Andy's psychoses, that Ken brings people to the site whereas Terry is a parasite that takes them away for his own profit, without giving any of it back to Andy. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If Andy were a successful person rather than a bit of a wastrel he would realize that the fact that Terry (as terrible as he is) actually makes a profit makes him a much more valuable contributor than Ken could ever be. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 21:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrating how he doesn't read CP but only uses it as a link-brothel, Terry carries on blithely with his Aynus worship. Генгис^pillaging 05:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Photoshop Redux.

Worst. Photoshop. Ever.^img Also, if it weren't shopped--what would it prove besides some guy had eighteen bucks to print up a bunch of posters? Please, User:Conservative, answer me this--do you seriously believe somebody will change their worldview because of a poster? P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 02:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I got family and friends in Melbourne. They could have a look if I asked. Ace^Moderator 02:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As per what Fergus did above, I ran it through JpegSnoop and it is yet another altered image. Once again, most likely GIMP.--Brendiggg (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll has a new toy and is showing it off, obviously. ħuman 04:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

i don't think it's him - just some other dishonest creationist. Ace^Moderator 04:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely altered. But what an elementary mistake - as if anyone would believe there's somewhere called "Melbourne". rpeh •T•C•E• 04:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that QE was supposed to crush, mince, dice up, and regurgitate atheism in the US, I find it funny that the only posters they can find are in evil, socialist Australia... --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, even if you can get someone to go to Melbourne and verify the posters aren't there, Ken will just claim evilutionists tore them down. Really, it's that different from a Goddidit argument; he'll always have an escape route.

Doing a Google street view of the intersection in question, as VMcDowell suggested to Ken, doesn't help: the image is over two yeas old. MDB (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's Flanders St. Station, North Melbourne. The image appears to be taken from here, but the Google Street View is 2.5 years old. CS Miller (talk)

(EC)Anyone on speaking terms with Maratrean could ask him to look, he lives in Melbourne. Sophie^{because liberals} 10:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's lifted from here. Looks real to me, but I dunno what difference it's suipposed to make whether it's shopped or not; it's just a bunch of posters. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What he was suggesting is to look if there was any place for sticking up posters! But the first poster in question looked more like a postcard-size thing stuck to a lamppost, then taken at a flattering angle. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 11:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"If you want to stay and evolutionist, I wouldn't go vacationing in South Melbourne, Australia if I were you!" You really need to improve your poof-reading Ken. BTW, there's not much happening in Switzerland. (Cue Ken, dancing to our tune.) Генгис^pillaging 11:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken's caption on the main page says, "Imagine a dogmatic evolutionist in a traffic jam questioning evolution for hours via the 15 questions for evolutionists". Assuming for a moment that the photo is genuine and putting aside the fact that the 15 questions are not unanswerable, you can't ponder the 15 questions if you don't know what they are. The poster doesn't even mention that there are 15 questions let alone list them (it would be a lousy looking poster if it did, but that's beside the point). Just staring at a picture of a chimpanzee for hours isn't going to shake anyone's faith in evolution. if anything, staring at that almost human face is more likely to strengthen belief in evolution, rather than crush it.--Spud (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe these are "photoshopped"; why fake two shots of the same thing when it might look better to have more locations? I ran some of my own pictures through JpegSnoop and found that they had been 'shopped as well. Honest, all I did was tweak the levels to bring out shadow detail and improve mid-tone contrast. Photoshopping =/= faking. Генгис^pillaging 12:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a thing of beauty that Ken shelved the empty QE Australia blog during the Melbourne atheist convention. Brendiggg (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets just say, for the sake or argument, that the posters are real. Why are they on a guardrail, a foot and a half above ground? Nobody's gonna see it unless the speed limit is roughly 20MPH. The only thing people will question is why is there a picture of a monkey on a guardrail? Unless you're like me, in which case, you will laugh at the silly monkey.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 13:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory. Vulpius (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a few other pictures of these posters up. They seem real. I think that someone putting them down there is just exceptionally stupid. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 13:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, putting them on a billboard above a highway might have more effect. Or at least photoshopping them there. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 13:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what you say, Josh. Ken's right. If you want to stay an evolutionist, don't go to South Melbourne, Australia. 14:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That useful little shitbit has made it to MPR. (Sorry if that's been linked already, only just saw it.) El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 14:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If I saw one of those then I stop trusting evidence and science and begin believing in some type of God right away.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 14:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

One thing that puzzles me about the picture itself - why, precisely, would a picture of a chimpanzee make me question evolution? 86.162.88.177 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Especially a picture of a chimpanzee seeming to ponder evolution. Did they forget that there is no biological reason for such similarities coincidences? It reminds me of the great answersingenesis gotcha moment: chimps and man don't share 98% of a genone -- it's only 95%! Whoover (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to give a sense of perspective for that poster. StarFish (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So that means its safe to go to australia? Dosn't matter anyway, because I never had any intention to vist a country with spiders big enough to drive cars.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 22:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. I'd rather defend Satan himself, but a slight rotation shows the end of the guard rail shaped exactly as those posters look. Damn. Whoover (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That would make them - again - very small posters, wouldn't it? --Fergus Mason (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As others have said, it matters little whether the photos are real or not. Surely, it would not be difficult to print out four posters, tape them up and take a photo. But, the posters on the guardrail seem to exactly fit the height of the rail. This seems a pretty striking coincidence. Especially since, to my eyes, the other posters appear rather smaller than these two. But that's rather more thought that this matter deserves. Phiwum (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Each panel looks maybe 18" tall by 12" wide. The wide-angle lens closeup is designed to make them look larger. I never said they're effective, only that someone having vandalized a gore point guard rail in Melbourne is plausible. I think the posters are aligned with the top of the rail and likely extend below it a bit. I agree that the posters have now been discussed more than evolution has been due to their presence. Whoover (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What's a "gore point guard rail"? ħuman 00:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Gore point guard rail. Whoover (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's funny, because of natural selection. That looks to be an excellent place to get hit by a car while taking a photo of a poster. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I always thought "gore point" referred to the fact that you'd be split in two and flayed if you had the misfortune of hitting one of those. 13:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)